Meta-Analysis Comparing Culprit-Only Versus Complete Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients with concomitant multivessel coronary artery disease is associated with poor prognosis. We sought to determine the merits of percutaneous coronary intervention of the culprit-only revascularization (COR) compared with multivessel revascularization (MVR) approach. Multiple databases were queried to identify relevant articles. Data were analyzed using a random-effect model to calculate unadjusted odds ratio (OR) and relative risk. A total of 28 studies comprising 26,892 patients, 18,377 in the COR and 8,515 in the MVR group were included. The mean age of patients was 63 years, comprising 72% of male patients. The baseline characteristics of the 2 treatment groups were comparable. On a median follow-up of 1-year, COR was associated with a significantly higher odds of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; OR 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10 to 1.70, p = 0.005), angina (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.83 to 2.85, p ≤ 0.00001) and revascularization (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.54, p = 0.002) compared with patients undergoing MVR for STEMI. The all-cause mortality (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.53, p = 0.22), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.72, p = 0.07), rate of heart failure (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.59, p = 0.31), need for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.64, p = 0.19), repeat myocardial infarction (MI) events (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.64, p = 0.15) and risk of stroke (OR 1.27 95% CI 0.68 to 2.34, p = 0.45%) were similar between the two groups. A subgroup analysis based on follow-up duration and study design mostly followed the results of the pooled analysis except that the risk of repeat MI events were significantly lower in the MVR group across RCTs (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.94, p = 0.009). In contrast to the culprit-only approach, MVR in patients with STEMI is associated with a significant reduction in MACE, angina and need for revascularization.

Impact of Body Mass Index on COVID-19-Related In-Hospital Outcomes and Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Given the high prevalence of obesity around the globe, patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at an increased risk of devastating complications. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed to determine the association of basal metabolic index (body mass index (BMI)) with the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), dialysis, upgrade to an intensive care unit (ICU) and mortality. Independent t-test and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to calculate mean differences and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with its 95% confidence interval (CI), respectively. RESULTS: A total of 176 consecutive patients with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis were included. The mean age was 62.2 years, with 51% being male patients. The mean BMI for non-surviving patients was significantly higher compared to patients surviving on the seventh day of hospitalization (35 vs. 30 kg/m2, P = 0.022). Similarly, patients requiring IMV had a higher BMI (33 vs. 29, P = 0.002) compared to non-intubated patients. The unadjusted OR for patients with a higher BMI requiring IMV (56% vs. 28%, OR: 3.3, 95% CI: 1.6 - 7.0, P = 0.002) and upgrade to ICU (46% vs. 28%, OR; 2.2, 1.07 - 4.6, P = 0.04) were significantly higher compared to patients with a lower BMI. Similarly, patients with a higher BMI had higher in-hospital mortality (21% vs. 9%, OR: 3.2, 95% CI: 1.3 - 8.2, P = 0.01) compared to patients with a normal BMI. Despite a numerical advantage in the lower BMI group, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the need for dialysis (5% vs. 13%, OR: 3.8, 13% vs. 4%, 1.1 - 14.1, P = 0.07). aORs controlled for baseline comorbidities and medications mirrored the overall results, except for the need to upgrade to ICU. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with confirmed COVID-19, morbid obesity serves as an independent risk factor of high in-hospital mortality and the need for IMV.

Steroid-Sparing and Steroid-Based Immunosuppression in Kidney Transplant: Is There a Difference in Outcomes and Recipient Comorbidities?

OBJECTIVES: Corticosteroids are fundamental to immunosuppression in kidney transplant but have significant side effects, generating interest in steroid-sparing immunosuppression regimens. We studied corticosteroid withdrawal on graft outcomes and comorbidities to study individualized approaches for immunosuppression. This is the first study of its kind in our ethnically distinct population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 103 consecutive Saudi kidney transplant recipients seen in our unit during 2014-2018, 102 passed screening; 32 received no oral steroids after immunosuppression induction (steroid-spared group) and 70 received standard steroid-based immunosuppression. Both groups had similar immunosuppression induction: the standard steroid based immunosuppression included oral prednisolone (30 mg tapered to 5 mg over 6 wk), tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil; however, the steroid-spared group did not receive corticosteroids after methylprednisolone induction. The Mann-Whitney U test compared numerical data, and the Fisher exact test compared categorical data. Relative risks for adverse events, graft dysfunction, and high serum creatinine were calculated. P < .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Compared with the steroid-based group, patients in the steroid-spared group were older, had higher mean body mass index, and more favorable human leukocyte antigen matching and panel reactive antibody profiles. Mean serum creatinine and proportion of recipients with above normal serum creatinine were greater in the steroid-based group; this group also had slightly higher incidence of acute rejection. No graft failures or recipient deaths occurred in either group. The steroid-based group had significantly greater weight gain than the steroid-spared group (67% vs 34%; P = .002). The steroid-spared group exhibited better control of blood pressure and serum lipids; however, this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Early steroid withdrawal in selected transplant recipients is a viable option for immunosuppression, with no compromised graft function or survival shown in our cohort. Given the significant impact of weight gain, blood pressure, and serum lipids on recipient morbidity and mortality, a larger study is warranted.

Efficacy of antibacterial envelope in prevention of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections in high-risk patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence is available to determine the efficacy of an antibacterial enveloped (AE) cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED). OBJECTIVE: To assess if the use of antibacterial enveloped devices in high-risk patients are associated with lower chances of major CIED infections and mortality compared to non-enveloped devices. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search on multiple databases was performed. The relative odds ratio (OR) of major CIED infection and mortality was calculated using a random-effect model. RESULTS: A total of six studies consisting of 11,897 patients, were included; 5844 with an AE-CIED and 6053 with conventional CIED. In the pooled cohort, patients with AE-CIED had a 66% lower odds of major CIED infection (OR 0.34, 0.13, 0.86, CI 95%, p = 0.02) compared to CIED. Propensity matched analysis showed a 71% lower odds of major infection in the AE-CIED group (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.10-0.82, p = 0.02). Stratified analysis based on the type of study (retrospective vs. prospective) and duration of follow up (6 months vs. greater than six months) also showed numerically lower infection odds in the AE-CIED. Similarly, the relative odds of mortality were lower in patients with AE-CIED (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16-1.91, p = 0.34) compared to CIED patients; however, this difference was statistically non-significant. CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients, AE-CIED might offer lower odds of CIED infections. It has numerically lower (45%) but statistically non-significant odds of mortality if used in conjunction with the standard infection prevention protocol. More large scale studies and long-term follow-ups are required to validate our findings.

Comparative accuracy of non-invasive imaging versus right heart catheterization for the diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Right heart catheterization (RHC) is the gold-standard in the diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension (PH) but at the cost of procedure-related complications. We sought to determine the comparative accuracy of RHC versus non-invasive imaging techniques such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). METHODS: Pulmonary hypertension was defined as a mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) of>20 mmHg. Multiple databases were queried for relevant articles. Raw data were pooled using a bivariate model to calculate the measures of diagnostic accuracy and to estimate Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (HSROC) on Stata 13. RESULTS: A total of 51 studies with a total patient population of 3947 were selected. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of MRI for diagnosing PH was 0.92(95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-0.96) and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.77-0.95), respectively. The net sensitivities for CT scan and TTE were 0.79 (95% CI 0.72-0.89) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.83-0.91), respectively. The overall specificity was 0.82 (0.76-0.92) for the CT scan and 0.71 (95% CI 0.61-0.84) for TTE. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for MRI was 124 (95% CI 36-433) compared to 30 (95% CI 11-78) and 24 (95% 11-38) for CT scan and TTE, respectively. Chi-squared (x2) test showed moderate heterogeneity on the test for equality of sensitivities and specificities. CONCLUSIONS: MRI has the highest sensitivity and specificity compared to CT and TTE. MRI can potentially serve as a surrogate technique to RHC for the diagnosis of PH.